Appendix B - Ecological Advice · 132008.1128

A site inspection at some stage to provide more certainty regarding what the actual/practical offset
requirements may be would be necessary. Calculation of offsets (e.g. koala) will need to be in
accordance with current regulations/legislation at the time of lodgement.

5. CONCLUSION

Assessment and conclusions based on preliminary analysis and assessment of two reports provided
and review of current State and Council mapping. Legal advice would be recommended prior to
further decisions.

General ecology:

The area is known to support threatened species and habitats and is adjacent to a sensitive
biodiversity area and National Park.

The two reports appear to have broadly covered the ecological considerations relevant at the time
and it is assumed that Council must have accepted this report (Place) as part of the approval
documents. The Orogen (2009) report appears to have considered the possible offset requirements.
There are some discrepancies between the two ecological reports regarding significant species, i.e.
which do occur and which could occur. Neither report provided a comprehensive assessment of
likelihood of occurrence – it is possible a new application may require a more detailed/comprehensive
assessment/analysis (i.e. by Council and the State). From review of databases and local knowledge it
is likely four threatened frogs, at least two threatened birds, one mammal and a number of heathland
plants have reasonable potential to occur on the site or in similar habitats that have been described
for the site.

Council mapping:

     •    Under the DA, a greater area is identified as Community Use, while the 2016 plan only has Lot
          9 as community use (it would appear that Council have reduced the community zone in
          accordance with the new Lot 9).
     •    The Biodiversity Overlay (as per DA) has an area identified as environmental protection on Lot
          9. The same area is mapped under the 2016 plan as environmental protection.
     •    Cursory review of the Noosa Plan Biodiversity Overlay (Table 13.2) indicates that the
          same/similar requirements would be enforced as previously applied (also - if new lots where
          to be created this would compromise the environmental protection outcomes).

In the absence of DA plans, I might suggest that if Council have approved development for all of Lot 6
and new Lot 1 it could reasonably be expected they would approve the same given the overlay
mapping does not significantly differ. The current DA requires the “offsetting” of vegetation,
threatened plan translocation and Black-cockatoo trees on a suitable site and within the development
site. A similar (or same) offset would be expected for a new application. If additional threatened flora
species are identified, these would need to be addressed further.

State mapping:

Assuming the development is wholly within an urban area/urban footprint for an urban purpose
(assumed) it is believed clearing of the remnant (category B) vegetation would be acceptable. The site
is within a koala development area, however koala trees that need to be removed within bushland
habitat would need to be offset. Offsets for koala trees and other matters of state environmental
significance (including remnant vegetation and threatened species) would need to be completed
under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014. It is possible that additional offsets may be necessary that
currently are not required. Note: Given the site is within a “high risk area – flora trigger”, no clearing
is to occur without the relevant State approvals in this regard.


Ecology Notes – Grasstree Court – Blue Care         8